Erny

That's ok. But yes - Kelpie-i uses "positive" methods where positive methods work. I would describe her as a "balanced" trainer as she recognises where other methods are required and appropriate. And do NOT poke your tongue out at me!

I don't think you meant it to sound that way, Nekhbet, but Kelpie-i doesn't "severely restrict her training" just because of "preferred methods" either. She will use what is right for the dog and for the owner, as the both together are a combo team effort.

I'm not a good example, as my boy is having some health issues that may run deeper than just allergy. As I mentioned, one of the problems I have and have had from the outset, is putting on and maintaining weight. He's a Rhodesian Ridgeback and at the moment, I am feeding him 2 packets of the Allerblend per day, so it works out very expensive for us. In my instance, I will be adding enzymes to see if we (the Vet and I) can get him to get more out of his food than he does. This issue of weight is not relative to the diet as he's been on other things as well, in the past. If you post up what the age and ideal weight of your dog is, I'll let you know from the packaging what the 'guide' tells you as far as feeding quantity is concerned. In the past, I've found that generally you don't need to feed quite as much as what the 'guide' indicates.

I am using this combo at the moment, Neats. We're one week into an eight week plan, so it is early days yet. I could suggest to you that there is a bit of an improvement but given his history (where with diet/formula changes look as though they're going well but then they deteriorate again), it is too early to say. I should know more over the next 3-4 weeks. ETA: IMO, 'game' meat would be the least allergenic - especially if it is not specially farmed.

What exercise/mental stimulation do you provide him during the week? Could be that he's bored. There are other possible causes, such as attention seeking (which could also in itself hark back to boredom), but I'd look at boredom first. By the sounds of it, you told him "NO" for letting go the sock to you. That can evolve to him running away with things such as socks (and items of even higher value) because he learns that giving things back (even though he shouldn't have had it in the first place) gets him a reprimand.

PM'd it through, JDavis. Thank you .

I agree, Midol.

Elfin - you are lucky. My boy's current health issues dictate that he be on the Allerblend for a period of 8 weeks (after that depends on how he goes). He is eating 2 packets per day (plus the OB & skin/coat) and that is barely keeping or adding weight (a problem which relates to whatever might be currently wrong, not the food). Yes. It is pricey. But I also agree that it is 'up there' as a good food.

No I don't JDavis. And right now, I think I'll concentrate on packing up for the night rather than getting into it. How did you get the whole paper? Is it a further download link?

Actually, Kelpie-i .... when you read that article it is condemning "leadership" as well. What it doesn't do, and nor have the transcripts and seminar I've listened to before it, is explain to people what TO do. It somehow strikes me to be along the lines of not having any expectation of rights to make decisions; to guide; to assert. A bit like 'parenting today' where the divisive order of parent/child has, from what I see and hear, been blurred to the point of equality in such a fashion that in some cases I don't think kids have the guidance they knowingly or not, actually need. Here's another sentence taken from that article that I would question : Ok - first, it doesn't suggest what punishment. Second, it doesn't suggest that it might have been inappropriate punishment or punishment delivered with bad timing. Instead, the sentence leads the reading to automatically assume that any punishment at any time leads to aggression. And here's yet another that I'd question : They're a "welfare charity". Do they really know the proper history of the dogs' experiences in life to be able to attest that the dogs' behaviour (which I am assuming by the context of their sentence means those with problem behaviours) is the result of misguided training (which they see "all the time")? And is "misguided training" supposed to mean "training by those who recognise and/or believe that heirarchy order amongst dogs/humans does exist? I mean, I frequently see problematic behaviour in dogs which has come about due to "misguided training". But conversely, for me most of the time it is for the exact opposite reason ..... ie because the human treated the dog as some sort of 'equal' and in doing so set no boundaries, guidelines etc. and was generally therefore quite confusing for the dog. And this one : What "academics"? And do these "academics" not know or see what I have seen as far as strategies that ARE aimed at (using their words) "dominance reduction" yet are very effective and beneficial to the dogs' welfare; are structured so as to not only not be dangerous but also reduce the danger that perhaps existed due to the dog having no structure, no understanding of expectations or boundaries? Going through that article with a critical eye, to me it talks much but tells little. The words used have been used (IMO - the impression I get, at least) to "coerce" (a technique that the writer herself has already condemned) the reader into thinking that "dominance belief" or "leadership" is bad, rather than putting out the actual factual information to prove what they say. All in all ..... a poorly constructed largely unsupported article. IMO . Perhaps the full version (this is only an extract?) provides more in facts and statistical information. But in its present form it strikes me as more an attempt to brainwash than to educate. ETA: And BIG DEAL if eating first or going through doors first makes no impression upon the dog as far as leadership ( can you say that?!) is concerned? Personally, I don't think it necessarily has a direct correlation either. BUT what stuff like that DOES do is gives PEOPLE something to do .... something akin to setting boundaries/guidelines and training. And stuff like that DOES work. And whether they (eg. the author of the article) believe it or not, what HARM in it? Or do they just like to throw that sort of stuff up in an endeavour to make those who don't believe in what they say, appear stupid? Their way of running them down? But then, if they are so right, why do they have to run them down, or give the impression that's what they are doing?

You feed the fermented (ie soaked) mix with mince meat mixed in. You feed bones as well at other times, as you might normally. It'd be a bit hard to mix the "Complete Mix" in to/with a bone .

Yes - their "Complete Mix" product is designed to be fed with raw mince (Roo Mince is generally the recommended meat, but it can be other) No - it is nothing like kibble. It comprises of vegetables, grains (and of course other additives) which have been air-dried at room temperature. So, as far as 'looks' is concerned, picture rolled oats mixed with dried peas and small bits of dried carrots, and that would be closer to the mark. Yes. I usually prepare the night before (ie add water to the appropriate serving) and that does for the next morning or night. I have had some great results with VAN, both with my own and with other people's dogs and I very much respect the product. There will always be one dog that doesn't suit a particular diet no matter how good it is, but a very good percentage of those who I know of who have for their own reasons switched to VAN (they are usually people who have dogs with some form of skin health issue) have been very pleased with the result.

He'll be picking things up from you too, Troppodogs. As best as you can, be normal around him. Give him 'jobs' to do (eg. follow the NILIF program - a lot). Try not to feel sorry for him as those emotions from humans can be confusing and sometimes exacerbate the affect of changes within the household.

Troppodogs - all I can offer is my condolences and perhaps some empathy for the shock, loss and grief you would be feeling right now. Jessie will meet with my girl Kal, who while she waits for me at the rainbow bridge will show Jessie a welcome to a place that I'm sure is one of comfort, ease, warmth and softness. Stay strong. Jessie would want that.

Oh - sorry. I thought you meant that posts such as mine expressing my take on it was raising "red flags".

Having had a quick glance at the article, there's a number of things that I would bring to attention for converse discussion. For one example : I agree with the above. IE That dogs are not generally motivated by some innate desire to control people and other dogs. BUT ..... If our interactions with dogs 'tells' the dog (and it is the dog's interpretation of our messages that counts here) that we aren't in control, then dogs (generally speaking) will step up to the plate (IMO). I am not even sure if there IS a blanket assumption that "every dog is motivated by some innate desire to control people". Is this just the writer's interpretation of it? To me, the "debunking dominance" argument is incomplete in that respect. I feel I'm having trouble expressing myself today, so I'm not sure if what I'm trying to say is written in a manner which is understandable.

Oh? What do you mean? (not challenging - genuine question). Why "red flags"?

I have recognised this problem for quite some time, Jigsaw. Even in the latest seminar on the topic, one of the speakers said she hates using the term "leadership" (which is a word that has been used frequently rather than the word "dominance"). So in typical form as our current society seems to be heading, instead of education, the general opinion is to 'ban' (so to speak) the use of something that some groups don't like. In this case, certain words. It makes it difficult to speak succinctly on a topic (let alone write about it) and we're getting to the point where we need to say or write 20 words where in times past, one or two would do. If these groups would instead focus their lobby to clarify what words such as "dominance" should be construed to mean when we talk about it in the context of dog/dog relationships and dog/human relationships they wouldn't have to worry so much about running away from the word usage. And I think we could then move on and forward a bit easier.

I recently attended a seminar that was focused on debunking dominance. I found the collective speakers to be contradictive to not only each other but also (and in at times quite blatantly) when comparing what they'd spent time telling us to things that were said at the end to support something else they'd said. I didn't find that the 'evidence' they produced to be particularly convincing. Haven't read the info in the link you've given Anita and need to get organised to dash out right now, so it will be a 'later' exercise. But even without reading the info in the link and merely looking at the following sentence you quoted : I can see where there would be a truth in that but which wouldn't necessarily "debunk dominance". If the dog has "learnt through experience its individual relationship" it might be quite satisfied to 'follow' rather than to 'lead' and so to the eye may not appear to seek a higher ranking position. Poorly worded on my part - but I'm in a hurry. Hope the point I'm trying to make at least to some degree makes sense. I've listened and read and heard a fair amount in relation to the "debunk dominance" theories being touted and IMO (so far) it really doesn't "debunk" it all. It strikes me that it's just a different way of wording things but when push comes to shove, ranking; dominance; and submissiveness is still apparent amongst many dogs in their relationships with their owners. To me, it's becoming a "rose by any other name" matter. But this is all without me reading the link so I'm hoping that what I've written targets what it is even about . ETA: Oh .... and just an extra thing to mention as I think many people have the wrong idea about "dominance" simply due to the connotation that has been put on the word over time. For me "dominance" is NOT a dirty word. To me it doesn't mean being bullied or something/someone having ill intent. To me it doesn't mean one being under the thumb. To me it is simply the one that governs and is seen to have the right to that government. I've noticed that many who entertain the "debunk dominance" theory do like to speak of the word "dominance" as though it is something bad and use the word with all the negativity they can muster. Just my opinion .

That sounds very cheap to me. I recently had a blood sample taken from my boy for testing - they were testing for two things from the same blood sample. Total cost of that exercise was $350.00. DG - I hope your boy's issues resolve soon in the simplest least invasive way. At least now you do, as Anita has said, have a plan by the sounds . Good luck. Keep us informed.

Would that be because using the leg encourages the increase of blood supply to the surgery site and therefore hastens healing? I know it's a completely different surgery, but I had a knee re-construction and was encouraged to begin walking on that leg asap I believe for that very reason. And perhaps also to stop unnecessary atrophy of the supporting muscles? I was off crutches after 24 hours. No rest for the wicked :p.

Glad that your parents acquiesced to consultation with a Vet. I would NOT point your parents to this thread, however it might help to pass on to them that we are really pleased that they have taken the step that they have to tending to their dog. Now they know that there is a problem and what it is, they'll be able to do the best they can for it and with any luck for the dog's sake as well as for theirs, the dog will heal without necessity for further intervention. Whilst they were reluctant to see a Vet in the first place, they might do with encouraging congratulations for listening. And good on you, Jabbawok, for being persistent for the sake of their dog's welfare.

Do TOT with BOTH of them (I mean individually - one at a time .... not both together). It can only do good.

I wouldn't recommend that. Whilst it might work for some people, doggy manners demands a certain 'personal space' when one or the other is in possession of food. What happened above was that you did not put yourself in a position to prevent Ruff from acting out inappropriately - IOW, you opened the door and let him do what he wanted. Make it so that when one is in its own 'eating room' the other is not allowed to enter and vice versa. I made this the rule when I had my sister's dog come to stay for 6 weeks (way back when). Initially it meant that I stayed put between the two rooms (ie laundry and bathroom). If one finished and tried to enter the others, he or she was blocked and shooed off. I eventually weaned myself out of the equation but made sure I was ever ready to step in if the 'rule' looked like it might be broken. With consistency in asserting this rule it got to the stage where one would check to see if the other was in its 'room' and if so, would come through to wherever I was. Once the last to eat had finished though, they would each visit the other's 'eating room' and try to lick the enamel off the other's plate . ETA: And if Ruff is showing aggression as this age (ie 6mo) you really need to get right on top of that and quickly. If you don't it will only escalate. CD - the point is that YOU must take control. Be there. Use a lead if you must. But SHOW your puppy what he must do and insist on it. Every time.

.... I've done the same with my previous girl "Kal" (waiting for me at the RB Bridge, bless her cotton socks) .... ie got distracted then forgot to give the "you can eat command". Until she came in to the room I was in a good time later to 'remind' me. Goodness ..... ya gotta luv 'em .